Q: Why was MagicMock designed a different detail instead of just folding the ability into the default mock object?

As an example, they might insert non-common code that ensures better error messages, Or maybe functions around some flaw inside their compiler, Or even permits Unique optimizations by making use of added options of that certain compiler.

If it appears in two distinctive areas, it can result in conditions exactly where one particular occasion is modified instead of A different. For both equally these causes, it's important to isolate and outline the numerical constants outside the house the locations the place They are used.

Let us even further fake that two as pixel padding in our application is of the "default_padding" variety during our process. Hence, composing the instruction padding = two will not be sufficient.

Let's set our lone "two" inside a context of: padding := two, wherever the context is really a "GUI Container". During this context the that means of two (as pixels or other graphical unit) presents us a quick guess of its semantics (this means and purpose).

What I always preferred about C++ is usually that, in terms of I do know, there is absolutely no these kinds of "magic" happening inside the STL, i.e. it is feasible to implement the STL in pure C++.

What If you'd like accessing your mock to be a container object being an error -- you don't want that to operate? If every mock has routinely got every single protocol process, then it turns into A great deal more difficult to Krol do this. And likewise, MagicMock does many of this preconfiguring in your case, setting return values that may not be correct, so I assumed it would be greater to own this convenience one which has every little thing preconfigured and obtainable for you, but You may as well take a common mock item and just configure the magic techniques you should exist...

Numbers on a scale might need semantics at the same time. For instance, faux we are earning a D&D match, in which we provide the notion of a monster.

It is really negative for a similar explanation SPOT (Single Place of Reality) is sweet: In the event you preferred to vary this consistent afterwards, you must hunt by way of your code to search out each and every occasion. It's also terrible since it may not be apparent to other programmers what this amount signifies, therefore the "magic".

Such as, You could have a magic variety of 0x12345678. If you see that magic variety, it's a good guess you happen to be viewing a file of the correct structure. If you see, However, 0x78563412, it is a truthful guess that you're looking at an endian-swapped Model of the same file structure.

Now my concern is: Is that this legitimate? Or are there parts of the STL that can't be executed in pure C++ and want some "magic"/special compiler assistance?

This certainly comes about since python attempts to open magic file as dll, that is simple text. Immediately after adding .dll to filenames from the code i get exactly the same magic.MagicException: couldn't find any magic documents!.

I finished utilizing the language mainly because they demand a lot more with the runtime engine than I could cost for the applications I needed to operate with it.

Can a fundamental benefit exist in multiple location in our code with distinctive semantics in Each and every, therefore producing our reader a confusion?